The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Font and Font size ??

I notice that compared to other professional sites, the text on my site look kinda weird, its hard to explain what i'm saying but its like it looks all messy or something.

1. What is the prefered font size most websites use??
2. What color font would be best for my site??
3. Any ideas or suggestions on how to make the text on my site look more professional, organized, etc.. would be greatly appreciated.
4. What font would be better for my site

Verdana doesn't look too good at 3, to me. Most sites (like SitePoint :-) use it at 2 or even 1. Besides Verdana, the other popular fonts include Times New Roman/Times, Arial/Helvetica, some Trebuchet MS, and Georgia (growing in popularity). Anyway, you should really be using style sheet for setting fonts and font-sizes, now.

I'm on a campaign..sort of..to take issue with the idea that Times is more readable. I know that's what the usablilty people say, but it's not my experience as my eyes get worse. I have normal middle-aged bad eyesight and I only find Times really readable at font size 3 and up when the type is black and the page is white, or some really close variation like that. At no point do I find a Times font more readable than a sans font. The serif part tends to blur. The only thing about sans-serif fonts that's not readable, is that some designers use very, very small type with them. That doesn't have anything to do with the font properties though. It's just my two cents, but I've recently been noticing the difference between the conventional wisdom and my reality.

I believe that most people have Georgia. Both Georgia and Verdana were distributed with Microsoft products, though Verdana is an older font so it's slightly more widespread. Almost everyone on Windows has it, unless they specifically uninstalled it. And, most people on a Mac have it since it's bundled with IE. At least that how I think its worked.

On the topic of font readability, both Georgia and Verdana were specifically designed for onscreen readability. Times New Roman and Arial were designed for print (long before computers), so that's why they're harder to read and cluckier looking than Georgia and Verdana onscreen, but vice versa in print.

Setting your fonts to times really gives the impression that nothing was set in the first place... any another serif would be better than resorting to times... it's not that it's a bad font; it's that we've just seen enough of it already.

Personnaly, I love verdana. I find sans serif are easier to read and give a more profesional look. But I think it comes down to personnal choices no more, no less.

Originally posted by cybercodeur Setting your fonts to times really gives the impression that nothing was set in the first place... any another serif would be better than resorting to times... it's not that it's a bad font; it's that we've just seen enough of it already.

Hmmm. Sounds like Arial. The universal BLAH font.

This whole idea that using Times gives that particular impression doesn't float. Most sites out there use Arial/Sans, it's everywhere, so the few times I DO see Times, the impression is that the site's purposely rying to be different. Granted, this is now, but I think what you're saying was truer a few years ago.

Personnaly, I love verdana. I find sans serif are easier to read and give a more profesional look. But I think it comes down to personnal choices no more, no less.

Verdana and Georgia are nice. I agree that it's a personal choice, but I can't agree that it necessarily looks more professional. A Sans does fit well on sites with a techy, more progressive slant. But as I type, just looking at the bolded fonts on this REPLY screen makes me think of Fisher Price people driving around in Fisher Price cars. Ugh. No character, and in content-heavy sections it's not as friendly on the eyes due to a lessened degree of differentiation.

The reason I'm sticking with serif fonts for content text on my site is because we're dealing exclusively with literature; and Times (or another serif) looks more appropriate to the subject matter. And it looks great with white text on a black back. At a proper scale with good spacing, it's highly readable.

Maybe if more people would put more effort into choosing their monitors, we wouldn't have to stare at ARIAL all the time.

I think designers should ensure that most of the content text or crucial non-graphic nav elements are scaleable. Generally, I think it's unprofessional for a site to lock users into one unadjustable text scheme. A user's inability to increase or decrease font sizes is one of the worst usability/accessibility sins. A design should allow a good range of font scaling to accomodate people with bad monitors and worse vision.

Well, what can I say? You're absolutely right. You've just made me realize that somewhere between 1996 and now I forgot to adjust my conceptions regarding the use of fonts.

It's true that I would tend to believe arial is just about everywhere. That much I can grant. I'll also conceide that it all comes down to saying it's a matter of personal choices. Personnaly, I've had enough of times, just like I've had enough of Arial.

Eventually when I'll be sick to my stomach of seing verdana, I'll have to think of something. In the meantime, I'll happily stick to it.

But you do bring good points... Anyways with the use of stylesheets now, we can feel free as birds. Thewre is so much more to standardized fonts than only the usual few.

Trends lead us from one to another. Let's just wait to see what the next cool font will be. As long as it's not symbol and its a system font, I think we'll all be okay.

Originally posted by cybercodeur Well, what can I say? You're absolutely right. You've just made me realize that somewhere between 1996 and now I forgot to adjust my conceptions regarding the use of fonts.

Nononono... I didn't mean sound like you were out of touch or anything -- Sorry about that. (1st thing in the morning What i meant is that I think for the general internet audience Times might stand out more as being different, though people like you and me remember when Times was about all there was. My apologies!

Personnaly, I've had enough of times, just like I've had enough of Arial.

Eventually when I'll be sick to my stomach of seing verdana, I'll have to think of something. In the meantime, I'll happily stick to it.

Sigh... The problem is that we really only have a couple choices, and we're restricted to what MS decides to include in their distributions, if we want wide support. I want to re-examine imbedded font technology and see what's going on there these days. I haven't followed that for a while, so I don't know how well it works on today's net.

But you do bring good points... Anyways with the use of stylesheets now, we can feel free as birds. Thewre is so much more to standardized fonts than only the usual few.

Thank god for CSS. That's one thing I taught myself from the beginning, along side HTML so I'd have it burned into my brain.

Trends lead us from one to another. Let's just wait to see what the next cool font will be. As long as it's not symbol and its a system font, I think we'll all be okay.

<cracked up for a minute there!> Looking around the clan gaming community, I wouldn't be surprised to see another geeky language arise out of Symbol.

Gak, I remember setting my Amiga system fonts to Opal back in the 80s... I just came across Opal on a font site recently and thought "What the hell was I thinking?!"

I deeply apologize for letting you believe I was upset... nothing could be farther from the truth. You have to read my message on the first level. I AM telling you you are right. I am even amused I didn't come the these realisations myself. Sometimes you do stand to close to the trees to see the forest.

Don't worry my friend. The chances of me being angry at you are about as good as Symbol to be the next best thing!

I am not feeling attacked in any way!!!

You did bring good points that made me think and therefore made me evolve. And for that, I am forever grateful.

Originally posted by cybercodeur You did bring good points that made me think and therefore made me evolve. And for that, I am forever grateful.

HAR! Now I'm really trying to decide if you're being sarcastic. Okay, next time I head out of T.O. for montreal, we'll grab a beer. Heheheh.

Don't worry my friend. The chances of me being angry at you are about as good as Symbol to be the next best thing!

Now I'm scared. I know I'm going to have a nightmare like that old Loony Toons cartoon with the day-dreaming boy being attacked by living numbers, letters, and symbols. I will be sacrificed by a cult of WingDings to their incomprehensible god.

I noticed most of the time arial looks better than veranda. I use either font 3 or font 2. If I want more emphasis, I usually use bold instead of increasing the size. Size 4 unbolded text is just lacking in some way.

1.) The text in your menus is 'verdana, size 2, bold' I would just have it as regular verdana as bold looks pretty unproffessional to me. To make it stand out you should give it an underline.
2.) The text in your sub menus is 'verdana, size 3, bold. I would either make this 'verdana, size 2, bold' or why not make it an image using the same text as in your logo, that would look cool.
3.) As for the main content text... I would almost definately put that at verdana, size 2, regular.
4.) Finally for the recent news section. Why is this font different from the rest of the site? It doesn't appeal to me when a layout is uN-cO-SIstANt. I would just keep that also as verdana, size 2, regular.
5.) I reckon the colours are fine as they are.

Also just my opinion but I think 'tahoma' is a cool font. It is sorta similar to good ol' verdana but is more futuristic looking. Dunno if thats what you are looking for.